Mr. Swan misses the point here. The success of the new bourbon was not because random restrictions were applied (e.g. Open a pizza place with NO CHAIRS), but because a high standard was enforced.
“OK, but there are two rules…”
11–20 of 75 posts
Re: “OK, but there are two rules…”
#12I appreciate the message, but am I the only one for whom the "fail fast" mantra is becoming grating? It seems like it was originally a good idea: if your startup is dead, let it die. Don't cling to a failed idea. Now, however, it's almost used instead of a plan, or as an excuse not to carefully consider your options. It seems as if it appeals to our innate laziness: "Take a shot. If you miss, oh well, better luck nex…
Agreed. While the "fail-fast/fail-often" method does work, that doesn't mean the older model of carefully planning and considering your market is bad or ineffective. I mean look at Apple. Every product they've got right now has had years of very careful thought given to industrial design, user-interface, and marketing. Apple doesn't release a product unless they're at least 90% certain it can capture the market.
Re: “OK, but there are two rules…”
#13Another great parallel is from photography: Many film cameras used to be sold with only a fixed 50mm or a 35mm lens. The restriction forced people to think about what was in or outside the field of vision. Today's cameras that have 10x zooms do not force the same consideration, and I suggest that amateur photography has suffered as a result. A friend of mine is a house-painter by trade, and has set himself the restri…
Zoom lenses have been the predominant kit lens for cameras for the better part of twenty years. I think the migration to digital (where the cost of shooting is ridiculously low) has had a much greater impact on the worsening of amateur photography.
That coupled with the ubiquity of sharing pictures on the internet has created a perfect storm of shittiness.
Professional photographers love to lament about this, and while much of it is elitist posturing; there is truth to it (I say that as someone who splits my time about 50/50 as a professional photographer).
Re: “OK, but there are two rules…”
#14I appreciate the message, but am I the only one for whom the "fail fast" mantra is becoming grating? It seems like it was originally a good idea: if your startup is dead, let it die. Don't cling to a failed idea. Now, however, it's almost used instead of a plan, or as an excuse not to carefully consider your options. It seems as if it appeals to our innate laziness: "Take a shot. If you miss, oh well, better luck nex…
Fail fast was just a side benefit. The point I was trying to make was to force yourself into creative and innovative solutions.
Re: “OK, but there are two rules…”
#15Mr. Swan misses the point here. The success of the new bourbon was not because random restrictions were applied (e.g. Open a pizza place with NO CHAIRS), but because a high standard was enforced.
I don't know....a "makers mark single barrel" would have had pretty high standards and a really "me too" feel.
I'll stick by my argument that self-imposed restrictions can really help people get innovative and avoid the me-too traps of entrepreneurship.
Re: “OK, but there are two rules…”
#16I appreciate the message, but am I the only one for whom the "fail fast" mantra is becoming grating? It seems like it was originally a good idea: if your startup is dead, let it die. Don't cling to a failed idea. Now, however, it's almost used instead of a plan, or as an excuse not to carefully consider your options. It seems as if it appeals to our innate laziness: "Take a shot. If you miss, oh well, better luck nex…
Agreed. While the "fail-fast/fail-often" method does work, that doesn't mean the older model of carefully planning and considering your market is bad or ineffective. I mean look at Apple. Every product they've got right now has had years of very careful thought given to industrial design, user-interface, and marketing. Apple doesn't release a product unless they're at least 90% certain it can capture the market.
Apple also isn't looking to get bought out by Google for $60M. They're in it for the long haul, and they're looking to be big players. Most of the small startups I see these days, unfortunately including YC startups, seem to be launching with the idea of doing one cool thing, having no idea how to make money in so doing, and hoping to get bought out in a talent acquisition by Google or Facebook before they run out of money. In many cases, it seems to be less about entrepreneurship and more about putting together a really cool portfolio so you'll get a massive signing bonus when you get hired. Now, that's certainly a legitimate way to make money, and it makes sense for the angels and founders participating in YC and the like. But it's not entrepreneurship.
How many of the angel-backed startups these days are really looking to be long-term players? How many are looking to IPO in 10 years, vs get acquired in 2-3? How many founders envision themselves as the CEO of their company in 20 years? The fail fast mentality seems, on the surface, to be a reflection on an underlying current in the founder mindset: that entrepreneurship is a way to make enough money that you won't have to get a "real job". Just slug it out fo a few years, then become an angel yourself.
Re: “OK, but there are two rules…”
#17Another great parallel is from photography: Many film cameras used to be sold with only a fixed 50mm or a 35mm lens. The restriction forced people to think about what was in or outside the field of vision. Today's cameras that have 10x zooms do not force the same consideration, and I suggest that amateur photography has suffered as a result. A friend of mine is a house-painter by trade, and has set himself the restri…
This is great
Re: “OK, but there are two rules…”
#18I appreciate the message, but am I the only one for whom the "fail fast" mantra is becoming grating? It seems like it was originally a good idea: if your startup is dead, let it die. Don't cling to a failed idea. Now, however, it's almost used instead of a plan, or as an excuse not to carefully consider your options. It seems as if it appeals to our innate laziness: "Take a shot. If you miss, oh well, better luck nex…
No, I agree. The "Ready, Fire, Aim" [1] approach is often taken to extremes. I see people do it with both their business plan and marketing approach.
But, I think the "Be relentless, never give up!" approach is becoming just as bad. A bad idea is a bad idea and you have to know when to move on or pivot big.
One is poor planning. The other is myopia. Both should be avoided.
[1] http://www.amazon.com/Ready-Fire-Aim-Million-Agora/dp/047018...
Re: “OK, but there are two rules…”
#19And now I want bourbon. Is 1:30 too early?
1:30 is neither too early nor too late.
Re: “OK, but there are two rules…”
#20I appreciate the message, but am I the only one for whom the "fail fast" mantra is becoming grating? It seems like it was originally a good idea: if your startup is dead, let it die. Don't cling to a failed idea. Now, however, it's almost used instead of a plan, or as an excuse not to carefully consider your options. It seems as if it appeals to our innate laziness: "Take a shot. If you miss, oh well, better luck nex…
Fail fast was just a side benefit. The point I was trying to make was to force yourself into creative and innovative solutions.
No, and I think your point was valid. I wasn't taking issue with your article, but I always twitch a little bit when I see someone saying how great it is to "fail fast".